ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026
A Practical Approach to Assessing the Completeness of Electronic Health Records for Medical Research: Data Quality Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Data quality is the degree to which data are fit for their intended purpose and is described using quality dimensions. The increased use of medical data in clinical research and medical artificial intelligence development has rendered data quality assessment essential. Despite existing data quality definitions, frameworks, and tools, data quality assessment in real-world settings faces multiple challenges. This stems from a lack of understanding of how to assess real-world data quality and interpret the results. Therefore, practical approaches to data quality assessment are needed that are appropriate for diverse data environments, intended uses, quality dimensions, and requirements. Objective: This study proposes a practical approach for assessing the completeness of electronic health records (EHRs) for medical research. This approach integrates structural completeness, rule-based assessment, and descriptive analyses of completeness and data diversity to clarify how data quality can be measured and meaningfully interpreted in practice. Methods: The completeness of a large-scale EHR dataset from Gachon University Gil Medical Center was evaluated covering January 2005 to December 2023. Completeness was assessed using a three-part approach comprising (1) structural completeness assessment, (2) rule-based assessment, and (3) descriptive analyses of completeness and data diversity. Assessments were conducted using clinical data quality assessment tools. This practical approach was used to assess EHR completeness for medical research from 1,798,153 patient records. Results: In the structural assessment, 12.8% (5/39) of the data tables were unavailable, indicating limited capturing of clinician free-text data. The rule-based assessment identified substantial missingness in vocabulary fields (38/124, 30.6%) and missing or special characteristic values in relation to observations (3,643,581/15,313,287, 23.8%), measurements (25,583,622/642,623,715, 4%), care sites (28/1715, 1.6%), and deaths (117/34,330, 0.3%). Descriptive analyses demonstrated a balanced gender distribution (886,489/1,798,153, 49.3% male and 911,664/1,798,153, 50.7% female) and a predominantly Korean racial distribution (1,739,628/1,798,153, 96.7%). Collectively, these findings illustrate the completeness quality of a multiperspective completeness assessment for medical research. Conclusions: This study demonstrates how data quality dimensions can be measured in practice through a real-world completeness assessment. This practical approach enables evaluation of EHR completeness and provides insights into data quality. Its findings have implications for researchers conducting data quality assessments and applying quality dimensions in medical research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.